The gender gap and the American presidential election

Will
the gender gap that decisively helped Bill Clinton and Barack Obama win the
presidency again? Only if women remember who waged the 'war against
women', against their economic equality and against their reproductive rights,
says Ruth Rosen

Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

Who will capture American women’s hearts and
help President Obama or Governor Romney win the Presidency next November?

This is the question that the two major
parties and their political analysts try to answer every four years. Should we appeal to them as soccer moms?
Working mothers who need broader benefits?
Waitresses who are single parents?
What do we say about abortion?
Economic equality with men?

A century ago, this was the dream of American
suffragists who hoped that newly-enfranchised women would be decisive in
affecting electoral politics. But it
wasn’t until 1980, when Ronald Reagan ran for President, that their dream began
to be realised in the United States. By
1980, more women worked outside the home, lived alone, and voted independently
of their fathers and husbands. Even
though women’s votes didn’t defeat Reagan, they created what has been called
the first gender
gap which is the difference between the proportion of women and men who
vote for the winning candidate. Since 1980, American women—especially African
American women---have decisively helped Bill Clinton and Barack Obama win the
presidency.

This year, the grueling Republican primaries
provided American women with ample opportunity to hear the Tea Party’s fringe
proposals to repeal the right to abortion, end contraception and the “”morning
after pill,” ban funding for Planned Parenthood, cut government spending for
services for women and children, and block legislation that would provide women
with equal pay---even as they cut the taxes of the wealthy.

The media started calling their assaults on
women “the war against women.” And it did make women angry. When polled in
early April, women revealed their simmering rage. A USA Today/Gallup poll
showed that “President Obama has emerged with an impressive lead in swing states
around the country — thanks to women voters abandoning
the GOP in droves, showing President Obama leading among women voters in the
top dozen battleground states by a whopping 18 points — greater than the
12-point gender gap he won with in 2008. The
president leads him (Romney) 2-1 in this group.”

Since Democrats held no primaries to
challenge Obama, they quietly cheered at women’s support in these vital states.
They continued to support women’s rights and let Mitt Romney hang himself with
his own pandering to the Tea Party. Women’s groups, too, felt confident that
such a fierce campaign against the rights of women would most likely help
re-elect President Obama.

Mitt Romney didn’t help himself by appearing
to have no convictions. As Governor of Massachusetts, he had supported a
woman’s right to abortion and had created the only universal health care
program in the country to which everyone had to contribute. During the
primaries, however, he needed the votes of the extreme right-wing. Suddenly, he
stood up against women’s reproductive rights and swore to help repeal
“Obamacare,” which was based on his own innovative health care program for
Massachusetts. The media began to call him a “flip flopper.”

For all these reasons, many Democrats and
women activists assumed that there would be a strong backlash against the
Republican’s agenda to repeal or block women’s rights, giving Obama a
tremendous advantage. And that’s exactly what happened during April and May as
magazines and newspapers competed to cover the “war on women.”

By May 20, a New York Times editorial summed up what they called “The
Campaign Against Women.” They noted that seven states had banned abortion
twenty weeks after fertilization, which violates the 1973 Roe v. Wade constitutional
decision and that several governors had eliminated public funds to Planned
Parenthood, which mostly provides health care to low-income women, even though
abortion is only a small part of their medical services. When the Senate re-authorized the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994, which protects women from domestic violence, Romney
and his fellow Republicans refused to include gay, American Indian, student and
immigrant women. The Times editorial ended with these tough words: "The Republican assault on women’s rights and
health is undeniable, severe and continuing.”

Nevertheless, Mitt Romney is seeking some way
to convince women that President Obama is the source of their problems. He
blames women’s poverty and economic insecurity on excessive government
spending. Yet he supports Republican efforts to block stimulation of the
economy, which would help them. Instead, he backs lower taxes for the wealthy
and deeper cuts for social services for the women, children and the disabled.

In such a precarious economy, his argument
may or may not work. Nevertheless, Romney is gaining, not losing women voters.
By late May a new poll showed that Obama was losing
some female support. One reason may be that extreme right-wing women, who
detested Romney, have now decided they will vote for anyone except Obama.

Obama
has disappointed his base by not using the bully pulpit to publicize his many
accomplishments. What he should now do is showcase his considerable
achievements. He has, for example, supported women as workers, and citizens,
not only as reproductive vehicles. But will the woman who receives a fairer
salary realize how hard Obama worked for that legislation?

He
also ended the gag rule that eliminated money for women’s health care and
family planning; supported Planned Parenthood, passed the “Lilly Ledbetter” legislation
that gives working women greater rights against discrimination, fought for the Paycheck
Fairness Act (blocked by Senate Republicans), passed the first universal
health care program in American history, affirmed the right of same-sex
marriage, and sought to soften the blow of college tuition.

After a very short hiatus, “women’s issues”
have once again resurfaced. During a heated national debate that questioned
whether the “morning after” pill constituted abortion, Romney refused to take a
position and remained completely silent. He then supported Republican Senators
who successfully blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act that would have provided
women workers with greater equality with men. At present, women earn 77 cents
for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. (Forty years ago, it was 59 cents.)

An
American presidential election is a grueling and bizarre process. But while you’re watching, remember that
both candidates will be trying to win women’s support---because it will be
decisive. Still, times have changed. The Tea Party successfully moved
Republicans to the far right during the last two years. A moderate Republican
is now considered an endangered species. As a result, Romney now faces the difficulty of appealing to the general
public, as well as to the right-wing extremists he pandered to during the
Republican primaries.

Still,
the election is five months away. For
some women, the “War against Women” may not obviously include high unemployment
and layoffs. They may even conclude that Romney could fix the economy. One
terrorist attack could change the entire electoral landscape, despite Obama’s
relentless efforts to portray himself as an aggressive military defender of
national security. Finally, the
European economy may also decide the American election. Eduarto Porter, a New York Times business columnist
recently wrote
what is usually only whispered, that “Obama’s fate rests in part on
Europe.”

In 2008, hope fueled the millions of
people--- especially women and the young--- who campaigned so passionately for
Barack Obama. This time, fear, anger
and despair will determine the outcome of the election. A Gender Gap will
emerge only if women remember who waged the war against women, who fought against their economic inequality
and their reproductive rights, and who refused to stimulate the economy to
lower unemployment and create a future for American youth.

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.